memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Federation history
Propose for Deletion This article duplicates a lot of information found elsewhere (e.g., United Federation of Planets), as well as contains a lot of subjective, non-canon, opinion. Given that the information exists elsewhere, why does this article exist? I propose it be removed, but would like opinions on it. Thanks! Aholland 00:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC) :See Human history. Can we have discussion about all sorts of "... history" articles in one place, please? -- Cid Highwind 01:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Happy to do so - but I don't know where that might be. I'm just trying to reduce multiple restatements of similar information for no discernable purpose given the hyperlink structure of this site. But I'm okay with a single general discussion somewhere. Aholland 04:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC) "Unprecedented Era of Peaceful Expansion"? "As the 24th century opened, the Federation began an unprecedented period of peaceful exploration of the galaxy, without any major conflicts along its borders." This sentence is factually inaccurate. Even after the signing of the Khitomer Accords, the Federation continued to face threats from several races along its borders, in particular the Romulans, with whom a very major skirmish occurred at the Tomed Incident in 2311. The signing of the Treaty of Algeron, which followed that incident, could more accurately be considered to be the beginning of the Federation's "Era of Good Feeling." This article should be revised to reflect that. ----Antodav 06:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC) :Actually, the line should be removed all together. Fact is, even after Tomed, there is conflicts, such as issues with the Klingons that only end in 2344 with the Battle of Narendra III. In truth, we know very little about what specifically happened from roughly 2293 until the 2340s, maybe even 2350s. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Major expansion needed Except for the first chapter "Prehistory", the article needs some serious expansion to bring it up on a similar level as Klingon history, Romulan history or Human history. --36ophiuchi 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Done. Well done 36ophiuchi! - Well, thanks 36ophiuchi! - It's so nice to talk to you! - Yeah I really appreciate that.. -.- --36ophiuchi 19:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Peer review Added the peer reviewing-template. After I invested some work in the article I think it's time to expose it to some serious constructive critique. --36ophiuchi 19:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Fandom note "It has been generally accepted in Fandom that the day which the Federation was founded in 2161 was May 8th..." This note seems like it does not belong here unless it is based on something other than fanfiction. Does anyone know where this originates? Is it from an apocrypha book? If so, a cite would be nice. --Pseudohuman 14:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Summary of Key Dates I have the idea of replacing the "Summary of Key Dates" section with the page Star Trek Abbreviated History because of the added detail it provides. However, it is a condensed re-write of this article, so should it be linked, or edited in? As of now, I have it linked to keep the page clean and as uncluttered as possible. -Ramerez- 22:11, February 21, 2010 (UTC) Star Trek Online The Events that are shown in the course of Star trek online are yet to be added these can be found on the official website and may be useful if someone would add them to further increase the information displayed in this article. :Star Trek Online is a game, and thus is not canon. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:29, May 14, 2011 (UTC) Removed In 2255, the Treaty of Armens between the Federation and the Sheliak Corporate was able to settle such a dispute by ceding several Class H planets to the Sheliak. :The treaty of Armens was not stated to have been signed in '55 -- Capricorn (talk) 20:50, July 21, 2019 (UTC) Pre-Coalition origins Is it just me or is this whole new pre-coalition origins section 1) personal analysis 2) tacked onto what was there before with little regard about overlap and integration 3) reading like a love letter to the characters? Look for phrases like "There is a wide consensus", "Her obvious high regard", "a very important impression", "a small, obscure planet called Earth", "She was surely also influenced", or frankly the constant use of the word "vital". To be honest with this type of addition I'm just lost as to how to respond. Cutting it completely is too much, but I don't even know where to start rewriting the thing (and I've tried). It's imo a fair analysis and it's written better then I could, but it just doesn't fit in at all. -- Capricorn (talk) 13:02, August 14, 2019 (UTC) :Agreed. The tone of the article as a whole seems to me to be too Earth-centric, with this section in particular focusing on trivial details rather than macro-scale events. Connor Cabal (talk) 20:42, August 14, 2019 (UTC) ::Capricorn wrote: " . . . start rewriting the thing (and I've tried). It's imo a fair analysis" ::Could we begin by listing separately, and in detail (1) what about it is the fair analysis? and (2) what are the parts that are patently inappropriate? A re-write might start with what is acceptably a fair analysis, and then we add on to that skeleton as needed, taking care to avoid duplicating the specifics that were unacceptable in the original contribution. Btw, if anyone wants trade detailed re-drafts with me one-on-one, I can be reached by email at rogerburns@pobox.com. ::One difficulty that occurs to me re MA in general is that we aspire for MA to be an encyclopedia. However, in a real world encyclopedia, an article on history would be written by a recognized academic expert who will freely refer to various consensuses that are widely accepted by fellow academics, and then at the end of the article the author will make citations that direct the readers to books that will give the entire background in full, without trying to cram each encyclopedia article with an entire history course. Here in MA, we can study the entire ENT series by viewing it on video, and come away knowing some points the producers have made via the full series that all viewers should "get", but the points being made are not necessarily contained in one or two quotes spoken by characters. Truth can be deeper than quotes. What we say with our actions and our lives can be more important and more relevant than what we say with our lips. And yet MA is comprised only of words. So we have the challenge of how to set down in writing what we have grasped as being the truth. ::The pre-Coalition origins of the Federation were unusual. In our real world, most historic events are the result of massive forces that have been in place for decades, if not centuries. The American Revolution was achieved by the efforts of several hundred thousand people. The U.S. Constitution was crafted by a few dozen people. The essence of the Federation of Planets was founded by eight people -- if you discount all the later paperwork and formal agreements that needed to be signed off by numerous diplomats and different planetary legislatures. That's an unusually small number of people to have founded an historically major institution. But that is the true story that has been presented to us by the producers of Star Trek. And therefore it is canon. And so MA has its self-appointed duty to record it. ::NATO and the United Nations were born out of war. The United Federation of Planets was born out of war. This Pre-Coalition text is the story of that birthing. There were eight people who were war buddies. They held each others' lives in each others' hands. I cannot tell you who died in the Peloponnesian War, circa 400 BC. Although I can discuss it coldly and intellectually. But I can tell you who died in World War II and in Viet Nam. And I can really tell you who died on 9/11. If you can tell a history of a recent war without it being at all personal, then it's not really a history. We saw the wars that the Enterprise crew went through, up close and personal. It takes decades or centuries, I expect, before a recent war might be told coldly and impersonally. Although who knows, in these modern times of archiving of news videos, perhaps the days of impersonal history writing might be gone. ::The award-winning history professor Stephen B. Oates, who was slightly younger than Martin Luther King, wrote a biography of Dr. King. It included accounts of those who died while doing civil rights work. Please read that book and tell me it is not personal. ::No personal stories of romantic love appear in what I had posted to MA. Only personal stories that happened to have changed galactic history. The history should be told. ::Syrrok (talk) 07:24, August 15, 2019 (UTC) ::What is history, here at Memory Alpha? Answering this question will help me as I may make contributions here. I am old to Trek, but new to Memory Alpha, as might be obvious. ::I've an impression, which may be in error, that the goal of MA is to document (1) canon, (2) all of canon, and (3) nothing but canon. If in fact MA is not committed to documenting that 2nd bit, "all of canon", then that will help me greatly in what I post. ::If our history articles are supposed to show only what a history professor might choose to write in an encyclopedia article, thus excluding very current events, then I must be guided by that understanding. ::I foresee a problem with such a policy, however. True In-Universe history could thereby only be what has never appeared on-screen, but rather only what has been mentioned as having taken place in some past not seen by real-world Trek fans. Because every thing that has been seen by we fans in a Star Trek series or movie would have to be classified as a current event. Thus I could not write about Pre-Coalition origins, which everyone has seen on ENT. Alternatively, if we indeed may write about Pre-Coalition origins, then we are saying that we're not limiting ourselves to what a history professor would write about, since such a professor would never write about such a thing -- it would seem to me. ::So what is the definition of what is acceptable to write about as being an In-Universe historical topic, here at Memory Alpha? ::Syrrok (talk) 08:51, August 15, 2019 (UTC) ::Capricorn had commented on my User:Talk page regarding the apparent lack of citations in what I recently added to "Federation history", specifically the new subsection, Pre-Coalition origins: the vital role of key relationships. I think it might be best that I reply here. ::Capricorn wrote: ::> Note that every single bit of information that you add should be cited to an episode. Those whole paragraphs that you are adding -> completely pointless unless everything in them can be backed up by specific dialog or other direct and unambiguous evidence. ::I'm adding citations now, and I still have more to add. Perhaps you'll take another glance at the most recent edited text? ::Also, there's a particular challenge I'm seeing for the topic I'm contributing to this history article (the article's title is literally "Federation history"). To a greater degree than in other series, ENT has long threads and numerous story arcs. Most usually in MA, an article can claim that XYZ happened, and then you just cite the episode where that occurred. However, if we take the term 'history' seriously and in the way the term is usually used, we know that history is more than a mere listing of specific events with their dates. In the long threads that were presented in ENT, many key truths -- the term "truths" having a deeper meaning than mere individual facts -- were revealed only over the course of an immense number of episodes. To consider the case of one example among many that exist, in the above-mentioned subsection to which I have now contributed, there's a place where I need to point out the major truth that Archer and T'Pol came closer together and grew to deeply trust one another. But that evolution of a professional relationship did not occur over the course of one or two episodes, rather it was a major theme of the entire ENT series. This is just one of several themes I need to draw readers' attention to in this subsection I am writing, and which may trigger the question of how does one document such themes if the truth being mentioned is only unveiled over the course of myriad episodes. ::My hope is that those who have followed the entire ENT series will know and simply accept the obvious claim that over a substantial amount of time, Archer and T'Pol grew to form a close bond. But to create citations to actually prove that in detail might require identifying a specific list of, say, perhaps 25 episodes over which that evolution occurred bit by bit. Need we require that? Or might there be a better approach as to how to document long threads and major overarching themes which need to be mentioned in an article? Again, this is a problem that is more specific to an on-going saga series like ENT than for other series that are more episodic. For the moment, the guideline I'm using is to declare a long-term theme if I know it is true and I need to say it, and trust that other viewers who are also rather familiar with that TV series will accept what is commonly understood about the series, but which may not be known by those who have not seriously followed the series. I am trying to be dutiful, but also practical. ::Thanks for your thoughts. ::Syrrok (talk) 07:24, August 15, 2019 (UTC) :::MA is not original research or personal opinion. - 09:21, August 15, 2019 (UTC) ::::Agreed. Also, for series-wide citations, you can just cite the entire series and not go to the extent of pinpointing particular episodes that especially demonstrate what you're saying. For example, as regards Archer and T'Pol's relationship, I'd just cite ENT, and if users want to investigate that aspect further, they can do so by reading the relevant subsections of the Archer and/or T'Pol article(s). --Defiant (talk) 10:19, August 15, 2019 (UTC) ::::This new section of the article isn't appropriate for this particular page. I think that the parts that can be cited should be merged with the appropriate relationship sections in the character pages. This is a history article and therefore prioritizes events, not relationships. --Defiant (talk) 10:51, August 15, 2019 (UTC) Let me just start by saying that the section you've added is a wonderful bit of text, and there's nothing really wrong with it in absolute terms, but it just doesn't fit the parameters of this project. Back in the day, before social media ate the internet, I learned the facts of trek life from hundreds of personal websites filled with articles just like that. Sadly the vast majority of those projects are gone now, leaving people like you few easy choices but trying to join some cooperative site, where some of the skill you displayed necessarily will need to be discarded to achieve consistency and cohesion. Maybe you should try to publish on your own terms somewhere, though I don't know, there's not much room left for that kind of stuff these days. With that out of the way, the main issue I see with what you've written, apart from being added to a larger article in which it has been fit very clumsily, is that it does go way too much into analysis and personal opinion. You're right in that articles written by historians do that too, but the fact remains that when you read between the lines, you might read something completely different from the next person. Memory Alpha is not the place to digest the information, we try to stick to cold hard facts so the people who are into that can trust that they can come check things here knowing their info isn't pre-interpreted, and thus as free of bias as possible. In short: it's a database, not a journal. Your additions are full of value judgements, claims that this or that was crucial or key or vital. That's speculative, because we've only seen the impact of one ship, we know little of the bigger picture or what other key players contributed. You shouldn't say there's consensus Archer was the most important person in UFP foundation unless someone said as much on screen. Otherwise it's just your own opinion, which breaches POV. Furthermore I see lots of what I highly suspect are inferences, things that weren't made absolutely clear but which you are assuming regardless. For example, the claim that T'Pol was a protégé of Soval, or that Earth's Vulcan-Andor intervention in Kir'Shara strengthened bonds between all three planets. Thirdly, you write as if you know exactly what is going on in characters heads, which you don't. Particularly with Vulcans, you go with the first conclusion a Human would reflexively draw when the series itself again and again offers examples showing that Vulcans are more complicated than that. That kind of mindreading just muddles things. -- Capricorn (talk) 12:22, August 15, 2019 (UTC) ::I have several comments and questions. First, let me confess my huge error in having glanced too quickly at an MA article and getting the misimpression that Jonathan Archer was the first president of the Federation, coming right on the heels of his other victories while captaining the Enterprise. If true, that would have been a huge signal about his paramount role in founding the Federation. His presidency did not occur for another 23 years. My writings were ineptly guided by a misimpression. Mea culpa. ::Second, given that the elders of MA see this section as being inappropriate, I don't want it lingering out there for the public to view. I am deleting it now. ::I nonetheless feel at this moment that some seriously revamped version of what I had contributed should indeed belong on an MA history page, and that it really should not be limited to appearing in the biography pages of various individuals. The import of what I had contributed is more relevant to Federation history than to the personal journeys of most of these key individuals. For example, an editor at T'Pol might be well justified in deleting such text, since it might not strongly relate to the overall flow and themes of T'Pol's life. Similar decisions could be made at almost every one of the other biographical pages. So this important story would be lost. ::I would very much prefer that suggestions be made as to how to revise this material in order to make it appropriate and to fit at Federation history, rather than saying it needs to be hoisted or transferred altogether. I am now contemplating the value of creating a subpage within Federation history that will flesh out this important story in its necessary detail -- necessary because overly broad claims that are brief cannot be briefly documented with citations -- and do so in a way that may pass muster with the discussions we have here in the Talk: page. Including by having any new contribution exclude claims that are not backed up by the usual citations. ::I am now reading with greater care the Federation history article to see how and where my contributions may better fit it. This leads me to several questions. ::Why is it that it is acceptable for the "Humanity enters the galactic stage" section of this article to claim that: ::>Earth's first Warp five ship, Enterprise NX-01, commanded by Captain Jonathan Archer, was launched in 2151, heralding a new era defined by encountering numerous new species, like the Andorians, and initiating those friendships, which eventually led to the Federation. ::but when I make a similar claim whose point is not much different from the above, and yet includes citations to back it up that are more relevant than what is shown in the section quoted above, I am told that the "Pre-Coalition" contribution would be better if sent off to the biographical pages? Btw, the claim I quote above from "Humanity enters the galactic stage" is in error. It makes it look like Archer and his crew had alone taken leadership in inspiring the creation of the Foundation, whereas in truth it was the larger group of people that the "Pre-Coalition" contribution had identified, most of whom were not Human in the account I had posted, but that list had indeed included the Enterprise crew along with the others. ::Secondly, in the "Pre-First Contact" section (21st century) it says: ::>The first, albeit indirect, seeds of the Federation can be traced back to the 2020s, in the inhumane Sanctuary Districts ::>. . . The "Bell Riots" . . . ::The sole citation for this paragraph is DS9 Past Tense, parts I & II. Yet if you look at the transcripts for those episodes, the future formation of the Federation is not mentioned once. Why is it that this interpretive claim, with no proper citational support, is allowed, but the Pre-Coalition section we are discussing, which had citations that were indeed relevant, is deemed inappropriate? ::Why are these erroneous or unsupported claims allowed, but the "Pre-Coalition" section that lacks those faults is deemed inappropriate? ::Do not misunderstand: I am not proposing that all useful interpretive claims be banned. MA would be much the poorer for such a policy. Nor do I propose that interpretations that are apparently useful should be exempt from the citation rule. Nor that every useful interpretation needs to be backed up by a lengthy in-depth analysis that would necessarily disrupt the flow of the overall article. ::My suggestion is that we make good use the subpage capability in all of these instance in order to retain the best of all worlds. And that contributions like mine be encouraged to remain in place after they have found their proper citational support, even if that requires arduous research to back up those claims. The challenge is that a broad claim might be supportable by a pattern of an immense number of individual citations which when considered together may well genuinely indicate support for the claim. The problem is, it may be an immense amount of work. The burden on the reader of the main article is relieved because the in-depth analysis is relegated to a subpage. ::I am working on an example of this approach, and I look forward to a discussion here about it. But if there are other reasons for dropping this attempt, please discuss them here now so that I may save myself a lot of my personal time. ::Syrrok (talk) 10:51, August 17, 2019 (UTC) ::Can someone define for me what "original research" means, i.e. in relation to what MA has ruled is out of bounds? Defiant says above "for series-wide citations, you can just cite the entire series", so I'm taking Defiant's word that that is acceptable. But what else does "original research" mean that gives me the broadest understanding of what is unacceptable? ::Thanks. ::Syrrok (talk) 11:00, August 17, 2019 (UTC) That's a very long block of text (and an ) one, incidently), excuse me if I just adress selected points, because they're all variations on a theme and it's really the underlying assumptions where problems lie. Firstly, you should understand that a wiki is perpetually a work in progress, that's just its nature. Those examples of other pages doing what you do that you take as evidence that that's ok.... are only evidence that not all articles are perfect. As a newcomer, you're just gonna have to trust that these so called "elders" mostly know what they are talking about, instead of spending time looking for loopholes. You strike me as decently educated, so this concept shouldn't be new to you. As for how to revamp your text, I think I've given ample concrete examples of language that's problematic, and others have pointed at other issues. You should re-read those and take them to heart. The point is that you should keep synthesis to the bare, bare, minimum - which can be achieved by, and is enforced due to, making sure every single data point can be backed up directly by something made unambiously clear at some point in a specific episode, ie the citation system. Again, this isn't a place for scholary analysis or to draw wide-ranging conclusions, we just document beat per bear everything that we know is the case. History book quality synthesis like you've written is just something that belongs some other place. Let's be honest, an analysis like the one you've written about how the UFP was formed really is bound to be about as solid as a history of World War II based solely on a viewing of Band of Brothers. And we should deal with that ambiguity instead of filling in the gaps with what we feel everything meant. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:11, August 17, 2019 (UTC) removed The first, albeit indirect, seeds of the Federation can be traced back to the 2020s, in the inhumane Sanctuary Districts, with which the United States of America attempted to remedy the problem of homelessness and poverty. Because of the conditions surrounding the distribution of food rations, took control of one of the districts. They were joined by Gabriel Bell, who acted as the voice and face of a riot in 2024 while dealing with police negotiators, also protecting the hostages. A government assault led to the senseless death of many people; public opinion turned against the concept, and the country finally began to deal with the serious social problems taking place. The "Bell Riots", as they were later known, played a crucial role in the evolution of the new values that the Federation would adopt; in an alternate timeline where they didn't occur, the United Federation of Planets was never created. ( ) :This doesn't really have anything to do with Federation history, it's just a part of Human history which happened to end with Humans taking a moral step forward. Wasn't liked to the Federation by characters either, in this two-parter or Little Green Men. It's article padding. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:20, August 17, 2019 (UTC) ::However, it seems that before the timeline established by "First Contact" and ENT (where first contact with Vulcans resulted to United Earth and an interplanetary coalition resulted to the Federation; not Earth's social change), screenwriter Robert Hewitt Wolfe envisioned the Federation as the result of a moral/social change that began with the Bell Riots ("The whole idea was that the Bell Riots were a formative thing in the history of the Federation, because it was what made people feel really bad enough to try to make the Federation." (Time Travel Files: "Past Tense", DS9 Season 3 DVD, Special Features)). If I remember well that episode, if the Bell Riots hadn't happened, the Federation would be erased from history, right? I think at least a mention to the Bell Riots as the prehistory of the Federation should be included. Tiki Mo'ai (talk) 21:33, November 14, 2019 (UTC) The note is the part of that that belongs: if the Bell Riots weren't explicitly linked to the Federation on-screen then the above reasoning still holds. But if the link is made by background sources, now that is highly relevant. Also, I don't think First Contact retconned anything; the Bell Riots were always implied but only implied to be part of the long climb up, and so was Cochrane's flight. -- Capricorn (talk) 04:22, November 15, 2019 (UTC)